Poll: Evolution and the other side

[kidd25]

Do we really need another topic for athiests to prance around and pretend they are smarter then others.

i like to use these thread, as a science in the works, teaching and learning from many parts of the world... too happy sounding i need some horror now :/ also yeah these topic will never die, but hey every time you get a chance to exercise your brain go for it ^)^

 

[Rems]

You know what's interesting? I went to a Christian, Jesuit run private school. There where hymns, masses, religious education etc. However we were never taught creationism as fact (or even at all for that matter). Evolution (and all manner of other science) was however taught to us by trained professionals. I just find this interesting, you can't tarbrush all Christians as the same. perhaps that's just due to the Jesuit reputation for education and rather liberal thinking.

 

[DracoSuave]

well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?

It's part of our diet. We eat zinc (on purpose) therefore it is in our bodies.

This is hard?

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)

Are you high?

EDIT:

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.[/quote]

first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal,[/quote]

what is this i dont even

i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

Disproving the religious assertation on a specific recent creation date of the universe is so easy it's not even of concern to science.

All you need to do is find an object that is so far away from the earth that light travelling from it would take longer to reach us than said religious 'theory' claims is the universe's age.

If said date happens to be 12,000, we only need to find an object further than 12,000 light years away.

Fortunately, thousands of them are visible with the naked eye after the sun sets.

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/

 

[AdamRBi]

Creationism, like many things related to religion, I've always seen as a way of explaining the unexplainable when no other information was available. Electricity, like lightning, used to be seen as something only a god could produce until we researched it and found out what actually causes it. Creationism is the same way; we don't know what happen so we'll say a god did it until we have further evidence.

Now that we have evidence for how life was created and evolved why would we go back? Even if the evidence isn't perfect, even if it has gaps that require more research, or even if it's false and replaced by a better theory later down the line when technology grows to examine it deeper why would we go back to "I don't know, it must be god?" Seems uncanny that that is the extent of some people's imagination.

That's like if I went to bake a pizza and while good it didn't turn out like Dominos, so I scrapped it thinking that Domino's was the only and best pizza out there and I could never match it. This is true to some extent, I do cook pizza at home; I research the ingredients, mix the dough, spread the toppings, and bake it. First time was a little off, but I kept at it. You can bet it's now better then anything Dominos makes; even if it takes a little longer.

My point is this; If you want to use a god to explain the unexplainable that's your choice and it's not a bad one. But what's the use of going backwards when we should really be moving forward?

Now to the point of the thread, no. In all honesty if there is evidence beyond the bible that explains the science behind Creationism I haven't seen it. There are points made on this thread that I scanned over, but a lot of those don't sound like evidence for creationism; what they sound like are attempts to disprove evolution.

It's been said, disproving one does not prove the other. Creationism, if you don't mind me simplifying it, says that a god created the animals fully formed. I'm not sure what they call the belief that a god created the spark that set off evolution, but I'm sure it has a name and it makes a little more sense for some to believe that. Creationism though has been overthrown and it's irritating to see so many people try to fight against science to protect their belief instead of fighting along side science to find out the truth about how all this crazy stuff that exists on the earth actually got here.

 

[Kataskopo]

I love how people believe stuff that can be easily refutable with a google search.
Just heard it from a guy in a video, and yep, it must be true and I wont even try to validate those assertions.

People, you have an obligation to seek the truth in your life, or at least try to not be wrong. Don't you doubt yourself?
Don't you think "huh, you know what, I "may" be wrong, I'm gonna check some stuff to see what this ruckus is all about."

I love too how people mistake abiogenesis (the study of how life came to being) with evolution.
Evolution has nothing to do with how life came to being.

 

[Sight Unseen]

well not every one agrees that it was 4,000 years ago some people say it was longer, but the thing about man is made of dirt, i thought man had traces of zinc and other substance found in rock in them, explain that please?

By longer do you mean 4.54 billion years longer? cause that's the correct age of earth.

And yes, there are trace amounts of zinc in fluids such as semen and plays a big biological role, which doesn't mean that we are made from metal.

So explain this anecdotal leap from having trace amounts of metallic chemical elements in our body to use being made from dirt.

yes i know he adds nothing but maybe some experiments are a waste of time (like cancer research clinics) (i really am sure the cure for cancer has always existed) (pm if you want to hear about that to)
)

Are you high?

EDIT:

most people, believe this theory as a fact, so Also if logic is your captcha then i am, sure you are ready to explain and define many things as you post in this thread ^_^

Your ignorance and stupidity astounds me. The laymen term "Theory" is the equivalent of the scientific term "Hypothesis", while the scientific term "Theory" means something that has been proven and can be repeated with the same result coming up every time.

first of all, really? "your ignorance and stupidity astounds me" hey guess what you no better than a man who lives and die so don't think your all high and mighty, you wanna prove me wrong fine. don't insult someone who you have no knowledge of ok.
also i never said we were made from metal, i said from earth, if your an evolution then why can't along the lines of evolution we use some of their materials to help advances our self?
4.54 billion ok that pretty good date, but it seems fit for evolution the most creationist would go back might be 8 to 12 thousand. Also that pretty sure number, even with the 20 different dating methods that we have today, as shown here http://darwiniana.org/datingmethods.htm

also be nice when replying, it helps keep the mind to think of way to help the person, not make them mad :/

In case you were confused about this, no, humanity does not share a common ancestor with dirt. no animal mated with some dirt and created humans. You're welcome for this enlightening knowledge.

 

[Vykrel]

it is kind of hard to study something that doesnt exist

 

[DracoSuave]

But yeah long story short, the universe was created by the big bang, then what created the big bang, science better not say anything until they study it more.

Science doesn't say anything about it. It's willing to ask the questions, however, and willing to test what it can.

Thing with a pre-big-bang universe. It's hard to test with current technology. So... not a lot of actual science is going to go forward in this direction for now.

That is not to say it is impossible. Merely, not yet.

 

[Yopaz]

Yes I have. I have actually played devil's advocate in some arguments against evolution (and won a few).

if you'd like to discuss any any know evidence for evolution with me send me a pm i don't want any fighting here.

(ill send you a pm soon to talk about some of the things i find highly "unscientific" but right now i just want to watch my topic you understand right?)

If you don't mind, I would like to get in on that too.

Also, the amount of people in this thread who say that we involved from monkeys or apes make me sad. Just...*sigh* I give up.

Apes are just a superfamily called Hominoidea. Biology(Taxonomy to be precise) has us classified as "ape" or "Hominoidea". Evolution does in fact claim we evolved from apes, and biology claims we are still apes.

OK... so you got some facts right there, but NO educated biologist will tell you humans evolved from apes. We have the same origin as the modern ape, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes or hominoidea is as you said a super family and neither super family nor super group is a good phylogenic way to arrange things. They're there because it's more convenient than the normal divisions. You might claim there is no difference between saying we evolved from apes and had the same origin, but every biologist curse the man who first said that. It's the statement that is the root to the creationist defense "Then why didn't all apes end up as humans?". What we evolved from is a specie that is extinct a long time ago.

But we are apes. What we evolved from would technically be classified as an ape. The common ancestor we share with modern apes, I would argue, is still an ape.

There will be a common ancestor even farther back, one shared by all modern primates, that would not have been an ape. But to say that our species didn't evolve from an ape is rather an odd claim to make.

Now first of did you see where I said the super family is not a formal division? Thus super family is not a formal division thus APE is NOT a formal division. If we were to use super groups in formal cases reptiles and birds would not be related. But ignoring the super group birds evolved from reptiles. Super group is for convenience, NOT for formal phylogeny. Also the super family for ape is not monophyletic, it is at best polyphyletic and with our current knowledge we're closer to pan than any of the others.

Also biologist are really struggling to get this misconception out of the world. Why make it harder if you know both how confusing it is for those who know little or nothing about evolution and how damaging for those of us trying to educate people on evolution?

I understand what you're saying, but one of our common ancestors would have been an ape. So to argue that we didn't evolve from apes is lunacy. Regardless of whether it would have been classified as an ape out of convenience or actual relation is besides the point.

It was an ape!

OK, so do you understand that ape is not a formal division simply something we use to look at the modern species? We use the division ape to look at modern species. Ape is NOT monophyletic thus we did not evolve FROM apes. It's a division we use between species that have clearly been on the same branch once, but how the relation stands is currently unknown.

So are you starting to understand that the division ape is not formal? That it is not monophyletic? Do you understand that every time you say we evolved from apes 2 creationists will ask "Then why are there still apes now?"

Why don't you just become a creationist rather than going around pretending you understand evolution because that's what you and most creationists have in common.

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

More than 50% for "Yes". That pretty cool.

 

[Do4600]

You can't study something that doesn't exist.

There are no two sides, evolution is fact. Even without the hundreds of thousands of tons(literally) of the fossil record we've dug up, DNA evidence alone proves evolution to be fact.

 

[Fudd]

*snip*

See, this is one of my biggest problems with evolutionists is they just flat out reject it. The smart thing to do would be to watch it and then take the "facts" and independently varify them.

but no. It's by Creationists... it can't POSSIBLY be worth your time......

It's as bad as people ranting on Fox News when they only know how "bad" it is from watching the Comedy Show or seeing random info about them bashing games on gaming websites. I won't defend Fox News, I think they are biased. but I've at least watched them and pretty much every other news network to realize that on a scale from one to ten (ten being horribly biased, 5 being average for all news stations, and 1 being as fair as fair can be [mostly meaning that there are only facts reported without any journalistic input]) they are probably a 6... and that's not to praise Fox News, but is a knock on the horrid culture surrounding journalism and the news today.

It's an hour or so long dude. Just watch the damn thing. So I don't COMPLETELY lose faith in the idea that there can be civil discourse about anything controversial, watch it... watch it for me.

EDIT: I especially like how on a thread about whether or not you've actually seen evidence for Creationism, you refuse to look up evidence... irony is such an underrated word sometimes....

Actually, a flat out rejection is warranted considering the complete failure of Creationists on both the scientific and theological fronts. Simply put, it's not even science, and it's bad theology to boot. It simply fails on the two most important things it needs to stand on if it is going to be respected as dogma, or understood as science. That's all there is to it, the only valuable thing about Creationism being that it provides a stunning example of how strict literalist interpretations that do not and cannot take into account the complexity of the biblical narrative utterly fail to provide satisfactory theology in a world that includes sources of knowledge beyond a single religious text. Literalistic creationism is a dead-end, appealing only to the ignorance of an audience that believes that just because a text can be read it is understood. I know of not another Christian movement that has treated theology and biblical interpretation with such a flippant approach as has this form of Christianity.

Keep in mind also that this literalist flippancy is selectively applied to the rest of the Bible as well, with disastrous consequences. Nationalism has become Christian, war has become Christian, even the acquisition and accumulation of wealth has paradoxically become Christian. These are not, of course, problems unique to this form of Christianity but the shameful treatment of scholarship by this form is certainly a direct cause of not only Creationism but the actually anti-Christian values that often accompany it.

Literalism is, in two words, seductive and dangerous. It is seductive because it is simple, requiring no particular study or expertise and providing clear-cut direction that conforms to preexisting value systems in such a way that it often does not necessitate a painful reexamination of those value systems and the actions they inspire. It is dangerous because in power it will quash serious biblical and scientific study and because in its ignorance it will willingly give a divine stamp to truly evil practices as it possesses no way to distinguish cultural practice and bias from actual inspired direction.

It would be enough to reject literalist interpretations of Genesis from a theological perspective alone. That science further disagrees just validates that rejection.

 

[BlueMage]

A couple things:

Do you have a source for the lava flow/dinosaur footprint story that isn't that scienceagainstevolution website?

I could have designed a website like that when I was 14 learning basic HTML and it makes my eyes hurt with the awful colour selections, it doesn't look like a very credible source to me.

Finally, personal opinions NEVER qualify as proof of anything because they are inherently subjective.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

A credible, NON-BIASED source perhaps? Is this too hard to ask for?

Not to get involved with someone else's discussion, but that comment is really a pet peeve of mine.

There is no such thing as an "unbiased" source. Everyone has biases, even the scientists writing textbooks for schools, and therefore the biases always slip into their writings.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v22/n1/dating

A credible, NON-BIASED source perhaps? Is this too hard to ask for?

Good luck finding any source that isn't biased. The only thing one can do is read what they write and compare it to things that are fact.

Gentlemen, any source that is dedicated to finding the truth of the matter will be unbiased. Or perhaps you're correct, they will be biased - in favour of what is. A religious website offering information on evolutionary theory is as credible as Fox News doing a piece on videogame violence and its effects (or lack thereof) on children - there may be some validity to what they say, but their lack of perspective effectively poisons the well.

So, I ask again: a credible source?

 

[dantoddd]

Lol! so are we trying to figure out if god did the big bang.

 

[YamadaJisho]

Threads like this make me kind of sad. People look at nonsensicle polls and biassed studies and think they 'know' the truth. No one knows anything. People discount anything that doesn't agree with their political agenda. It's sad.

 

[chadachada123]

If there is anyone on this forum who legitimately believes in creationism, you really ought to research the bergess shale geological formation and the fact that boa constrictors are still born with legs/arms from time-to-time. Evolution is fact and every piece of new evidence scientists uncover further supports it.

I've always found that the term intelligent design simply makes god look bad. I would think an entity with a hands-on approach who tweaks every aspect of our existence would have created humans without cancer. And a planet without pollution. And ensuring plentiful food for every one of his creations.

If you seriously believe in creationism and aren't the least bit skeptical, you really ought to start asking more questions.

Wasn't it covered in Genisis how the Serpent had it's legs taken away? Just saying.

Only Right Handed Amino Acids can form life, Left Handed are toxic to life. So based on experiments done, the conditions that are commonly thought of as the conditions before life are impossible to create life.

Regarding this concept, called chirality.

L-type amino acids (what you call right-handed, but actually means "left-handed") are prevalent in complex life forms.

However, most bacteria are D-type, (what you call left-handed, but actually means "right-handed")

Life exists on this planet with amino acids of both chiralities.

Ergo your claim is patently false. Not only is your claim on chirality completely false, D-type amino acids are not, in fact, toxic.

To prove this, you need only perform an experiment wherein you eat a substance containing both types of amino acids.

I'm going to go eat a bowl of yogurt now.

Continue.

I could be wrong. Lets look at some similar experiments. One by Louis Pasteur. He had a sterilized broth of amino acids, proteins, and DNA that he kept the air out of by using water in a bent tube. As seen here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/images/v5i11g1.jpg

Note that there is no growth within the broth (dead things stayed dead) until the neck is broken and air is introduced. (life is introduced into a dead space and life grew) Pasteur proved that life only comes from pre-existing life.

Which brings us back to Dr. Miller.. Even if Stanley Miller?s experiment showed that all the amino acids, proteins, sugars, etc., found in living things today could be produced in high concentrations in water by natural processes, it would not matter because Pasteur?s experiment proved that those organic molecules would not come to life.

Organic molecules did appear after a few days. But only 8 of the 20 required amino acids were produced.

Which brings me to a mistake I made. You are right that left and right handed amino acids can exist together and not cause too much problem. However, Left and right handed proteins are different. Oddly enough, Evolutionists are apparently not wanting to speak of it from the lack of talk on 'their' sites. You can read more on these sites I found: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_04.html
http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch10b.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v5i11f.htm

Are you comparing Pasteur's small flask without any input of energy and a day or two's time to THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND A BILLION YEARS, with the energy from both the goddamn sun and thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean?

You also seem to think that a very, very simple organism would require 20 different types of amino acids to reproduce, which is simply not the case.

 

[Vault101]

I dislike the rather smug way atheist dismiss any Creation Science or even Intelligent Design arguements because its "Not really science" or has been "disproved before many times" because that could literally be said about anything (within reason obviously) Unless you can articulate the arguement, dont assume that you're correct. Also, the studies about atheists being more intelligent than believers is actually pretty skewed. Its not a matter of intellect or upbringing, its simply education. More highly educated people tend to be more atheistic. Does that mean atheists are SMARTER than believers? No, its just because most atheists arent lower class and believers (being a larger majority by A LOT) are obviously going to be less educated because there is MORE of them. Its a simple mathimatical miscalcuation.

why isnt it ok to dismiss creation science?

because it ISNT really science, science and religion dont combine that way (of coarse you could say that god exists and big bang/evolution was his Idea, that doesnt really conflict with eather side of things)

 

[blaize2010]

okay, there's been enough of these. in an attempt to make sure it's the last one, i'll go ahead and say it:
FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, NO, CREATIONISM IS NOT A VALID THEORY, WHILE EVOLUTION IS A BIT MORE GROUNDED IN FACT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE AS HOW WE ARE DID NOT EXIST A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO. FURTHERMORE, GODS THEMSELVES ARE, FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, UNABLE TO EXIST, AS THEY CANNOT EXIST WITHIN THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. WHEN YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, GOD DOES NOT EXIST, AS A GOD IS SUPERNATURAL, AND SCIENTISTS STUDY THE *NATURAL* WORLD, A WORLD IN WHICH THINGS BECAME AS THEY ARE *NATURALLY.* IF YOU AREN'T ONE, FINE, BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT RELIGION IS NOT COMPATABLE WITH PURE FACT, WHICH IS SCIENCE, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE. OUR THEORIES ARE ENOUGH, BUT ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THEORIES ARE NOT BELIEFS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEORY MEANS AN IDEA GROUNDED IN FACT, AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE. A BELIEF IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN TEST, IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN KNOW. IT IS A THING TAKEN ON FAITH, WHICH IS NOT GOOD, AS YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING IN FAITH, BUT SCIENCE PROVES THINGS. IT ASSURES THINGS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION IS THAT ONE IS BASED IN FACT, IN WHAT WE KNOW, CONCRETELY TO BE TRUE, WITH KNOWLEDGE GOING BACK BILLIONS OF YEARS, TESTABLE, AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WHILE THE OTHER IS RELIGIOUS PRATTLE FROM OLD DEAD MEN WHO WROTE STUFF DOWN A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND THEN EVERYONE STARTED BOWING BEFORE ONE ICON OR ANOTHER, AND STARTED FIGHTING OVER WHO'S ICON WAS MORE SHINY AND WHICH ONE WAS RIGHT. AND HERE I AM, A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS LATER, TELLING YOU THIS, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH AND TRY TO ASSURE EVERYONE THAT EVERYONE IS RIGHT. NO. NOT EVERYONE IS RIGHT. EITHER ITS THE SCIENTISTS, OR THE RELIGIOUS FOLK, AND GUESS WHO'S BEEN MORE RIGHT SO FAR?. SCIENTIFICALLY, THERE IS NO GOD. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IN FAITH, FINE, I DON'T CARE, BUT UNTIL WE DIE AND SEE THE PEARLY GATES, OR THE FIERY MOUTH OF HELL, FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE SCIENTISTS, WHO BELIEVE IN WHAT CAN BE SEEN, OBSERVED, TESTED, MEASURED, THERE. IS. NO. GOD. THERE IS NO CREATIONISM. THERE ARE NO ANGELS, DEMONS, FAERIES, UNICORNS, DRAGONS, MONSTERS, VAMPIRES, WEREWOLVES, OR ANY OTHER CREATURE, BEING, OR IDEA NOT FOUND AND OBSERVED. ASKING ME TO CONSIDER THE REALITY OF CREATIONISM IS LIKE ASKING ME TO TRY TO BELIEVE IN GOD, WHICH TO ME SOUNDS LIKE ASKING ME TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC AND ELVES AND CRAP LIKE THAT. AND. I. CAN'T.
i can't prove it, i can't see it, i can't believe in it. and you will get more answers like this. because the escapist is filled with geeks, who are scientists, who almost never believe in creationism or god or religion. because we can't. so, please, please, please, please stop with these subjects. they're bringing me down, man. i always click on them and there's always one guy with a "NO WAIT GAIZ B-CUZ I HAV PRUF OV GOD" and i always read it, and i'm never impressed. these are annoying, pointless, and stupid. no one will be swayed, ever. if you believe, you will read this, get pissed, and keep on believeing, and if you don't believe this, you will read this, smile a smug smile, then go off and do the same damn thing, post the same topic. it's a vicious cycle, it just makes people unhappy, stop talking about it. and if you post these because you're some 13 year old kid who wants to look all cool and edgy because he doesn't believe in god and he wants everyone to know it, please stop. i know some of you are, i was like that once. i'm tired of this rant already, and i haven't even made it to my twentieth decade of life yet.

 

[Fudd]

okay, there's been enough of these. in an attempt to make sure it's the last one, i'll go ahead and say it:
FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, NO, CREATIONISM IS NOT A VALID THEORY, WHILE EVOLUTION IS A BIT MORE GROUNDED IN FACT DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE AS HOW WE ARE DID NOT EXIST A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION YEARS AGO. FURTHERMORE, GODS THEMSELVES ARE, FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT, UNABLE TO EXIST, AS THEY CANNOT EXIST WITHIN THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. WHEN YOU ARE A SCIENTIST, GOD DOES NOT EXIST, AS A GOD IS SUPERNATURAL, AND SCIENTISTS STUDY THE *NATURAL* WORLD, A WORLD IN WHICH THINGS BECAME AS THEY ARE *NATURALLY.* IF YOU AREN'T ONE, FINE, BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU WANT, BUT RELIGION IS NOT COMPATABLE WITH PURE FACT, WHICH IS SCIENCE, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE. OUR THEORIES ARE ENOUGH, BUT ALWAYS REMEMBER THAT THEORIES ARE NOT BELIEFS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING. THEORY MEANS AN IDEA GROUNDED IN FACT, AND IS SCIENTIFICALLY TESTABLE. A BELIEF IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN TEST, IT IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN KNOW. IT IS A THING TAKEN ON FAITH, WHICH IS NOT GOOD, AS YOU CAN TAKE ANYTHING IN FAITH, BUT SCIENCE PROVES THINGS. IT ASSURES THINGS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CREATIONISM AND EVOLUTION IS THAT ONE IS BASED IN FACT, IN WHAT WE KNOW, CONCRETELY TO BE TRUE, WITH KNOWLEDGE GOING BACK BILLIONS OF YEARS, TESTABLE, AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WHILE THE OTHER IS RELIGIOUS PRATTLE FROM OLD DEAD MEN WHO WROTE STUFF DOWN A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS AGO AND THEN EVERYONE STARTED BOWING BEFORE ONE ICON OR ANOTHER, AND STARTED FIGHTING OVER WHO'S ICON WAS MORE SHINY AND WHICH ONE WAS RIGHT. AND HERE I AM, A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS LATER, TELLING YOU THIS, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ANGRY BECAUSE I DIDN'T BEAT AROUND THE BUSH. SCIENTIFICALLY, THERE IS NO GOD. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IN ON FAITH, FINE, I DON'T CARE, BUT UNTIL WE DIE AND SEE THE PEARLY GATES, OR THE FIERY MOUTH OF HELL, FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE SCIENTISTS, WHO BELIEVE IN WHAT CAN BE SEEN, OBSERVED, TESTED, MEASURED, THERE. IS. NO. GOD. THERE IS NO CREATIONISM. THERE ARE NO ANGELS, DEMONS, FAERIES, UNICORNS, DRAGONS, MONSTERS, VAMPIRES, WEREWOLVES, OR ANY OTHER CREATURE, BEING, OR IDEA NOT FOUND AND OBSERVED. ASKING ME TO CONSIDER THE REALITY OF CREATIONISM IS LIKE ASKING ME TO TRY TO BELIEVE IN GOD, WHICH TO ME SOUNDS LIKE ASKING ME TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC AND ELVES AND CRAP LIKE THAT. AND. I. CAN'T.
i can't prove it, i can't see it, i can't believe in it. and you will get more answers like this. because the escapist is filled with geeks, who are scientists, who almost never believe in creationism or god or religion. because we can't. so, please, please, please, please stop with these subjects. they're bringing me down, man. i always click on them and there's always one guy with a "NO WAIT GAIZ B-CUZ I HAV PRUF OF GOD" and i always read it, and i'm never impressed. these are annoying, pointless, and stupid. no one will be swayed, ever. if you believe, you will read this, get pissed, and keep on believeing, and if you don't believe this, you will read this, smile a smug smile, then go off and do the same damn thing, post the same topic. it's a vicious cycle, it just makes people unhappy, stop talking about it. and if you post these because you're some 13 year old kid who wants to look all cool and edgy because he doesn't believe in god and he wants everyone to know it, please stop. i know some of you are, i was like that once. i'm tired of this rant already, and i haven't even made it to my twentieth decade of life yet.

I've never before seen a voice of reason speak in all caps. First time for everything Not that it's going to stop me arguing

Also, I should hope you've not made it anywhere near your 20th decade... that would just be... unnatural.

 

[Evidencebased]

snip

EXPERIMENT UPDATE:

I have eaten the 500ml of mocha flavored yogurt, and I am feeling full. This is probably due two having eaten a pound of yogurt, but it could be the start of my death thrall.

Updates soon.

Hmm, you're probably feeling full because the yogurt is spontaneously generating baby monkeys in your stomach. Eventually they will burst out and start evolving into baby humans, who will then evolve into adult humans. SCIENCE.